A law blog by Robert Lombardo on The Whole 9

Do Zombies have Constitutional Rights?

At about 6 p.m. on Saturday, July 22, 2006, a group of seven people (one a minor) met at a light rail station in downtown Minneapolis, while the city was in the midst of hosting a week-long summer festival known as the Aquatennial.  Their plan was to protest the “mindless” nature of consumer culture by walking through the downtown area dressed as zombies - wearing white powder and fake blood on their faces and dark makeup around their eyes.

From their meeting place, the “zombies” proceeded down Nicollet Mall, walking in a stiff, lurching fashion. They carried four bags of sound equipment. One bag contained an iPod, a radio transmitter, an antenna, and a wireless phone handset. The others contained radio receivers, amplifiers, and speakers. Some of the equipment, including wiring, was visible on the outside of the bags.

As they “danced” their way down the street, they played music from the iPod, through the radio devices, and over the speakers. They also broadcasted announcements such as “get your brains here” and “[b]rain cleanup in Aisle 5” by speaking into the wireless phone handset.  The “zombies” came within three feet of bystanders, and received “weird” looks from some they passed.

At around 7 p.m., Minneapolis police received word of an anonymous 911 call complaining about a group of “people covered in make up playing loud music from a boombox.”  According to the caller, the group’s members were “calling themselves zombies and almost touching people.”

Officers responded to the call and found the zombies playing music and dancing.  When approached by the officers, the zombies explained that they meant their actions as an “anticonsumerist” commentary.  According to the officers, the zombies” were “walking around, coming up close to people,” and pedestrians were “scooting away from them.”  The officers informed the zombies that their conduct had garnered a complaint, and asked them to turn down their music and keep their distance from bystanders.  After this brief exchange, the officers allowed the zombies to continue on their way.

One of the officers, who was in charge of patrolling the area for drunk people that evening, expressed concern that the zombies were affiliated with the Juggalos, a violent gang from Washington State known for wearing face paint.   The officers then decided to approach the zombies again, in an effort to identify them.

When the officers found them, the zombies were no longer dancing or playing music, but were gathered on a sidewalk.  As part of a larger crowd, the zombies had just finished watching an outdoor performance by a high school drumline.   According to the officers, a young girl with her father saw the zombies and became frightened.

The officers asked the zombies for identification, but most of them were not carrying identification with them. The officers informed the zombies that they were being taken to the police station to be identified.  One of the zombies asked whether they were being “detained,” and one of the officers responded, “Yes.”  The zombie asked, “What’s the charge?” The officer said, “I don’t know, let’s call it disorderly conduct for now.”  The officers escorted the zombies to a station several blocks away.

At the station, the zombies were met by numerous officers, including the officer in charge, who acted like “a drill sergeant with new recruits,” and said that he didn’t “give a g**damn about anybody’s constitutional f***ing rights.”   The zombies were patted down and placed in a holding cell, from which they were removed one at a time for questioning about their identities.  In addition, officers searched the zombies’ bags.  Based on the equipment inside, the police became concerned that the bags were dangerous, and requested that they be inspected by a bomb technician who determined that the bags did not contain explosives.

However, the officer in charge, ordered the zombies booked into jail on charges of displaying simulated weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”), a state offense punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment.

All but one of the zombies were transported to the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (the juvenile went to the juvenile detention center).  During the booking process, one of the zombies refused to reveal his last name.  Jail officials noted that he had metal accessories in his hair, and placed him in a holding cell where he could remove them. They also noted that he had a prosthetic left leg, from the knee down,  that contained metal parts. After discussing his medical condition with the nurse on duty, the zombie was taken to another room, where his prosthetic leg was confiscated by a detention deputy.  The nurse explained to the zombie that the leg was seized out of concern that it could be used as a weapon.  The zombie agreed to provide his last name in order to finish the booking process and obtain a property receipt for his leg.  He was given a wheelchair and was eventually placed in an ADA-compliant cell.

On the following Monday, after spending two nights in jail, the zombies were released from custody.  A sergeant reviewing the zombies’ arrests had examined the equipment seized from their bags, and concluded that the equipment did not meet the definition of simulated WMD. At the time of release, the zombies received back all of their seized property, including the prosthetic leg. Authorities never filed a formal criminal complaint against any of the zombies.

The zombies filed suit in Minnesota state court against the City of Minneapolis and thirteen of its police officers.  Their complaint included allegations that they were arrested “without any cause to believe that they had committed a crime,” in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that they were seized in retaliation for “exercising their basic and fundamental right to engage in artistic and political expression,” in violation of the First Amendment.

 

You are the judge.  What is your decision?

You just cannot make this stuff up.

This sounds like a case of policing gone awry…and I would side with the Zombies…and agree with you that you just cannot make this stuff up. The part about the prosthetic leg is probably the most absurd piece of this wacky tale.

Man, that is jacked up… Where my fiancee went to college in Fredonia they have ZOMBIE day where everyone in town pretty much dressed up as zombies and did the same type of wacky stuff as these kids all day long. This is definitely a case of policing, paltry lawmaking and law understanding gone wrong.

Now “Real” zombies on the other hand… they only have one right. The right to a bullet in the brain pan!

Flying High?

Were you watching the Super Bowl ads this past Sunday?  Did you see the commercial for the Air Force Reserve?

Take a look at the ad here:  Grab Some Air – (it starts at about 8 sec.)

Recognize that tune?

If not, take a look at this video: Fell In Love With A Girl

Nope; the White Stripes were not amused.

Last Monday, they wrote on their Third Man Records site:

We believe our song was re-recorded and used without permission of the White Stripes, our publishers, label or management.

The White Stripes take strong insult and objection to the Air Force Reserve presenting this advertisement with the implication that we licensed one of our songs to encourage recruitment during a war that we do not support.

The White Stripes support this nation’s military, at home and during times when our country needs and depends on them. We simply don’t want to be a cog in the wheel of the current conflict, and hope for a safe and speedy return home for our troops.

We have not licensed this song to the Air Force Reserve and plan to take strong action to stop the ad containing this music.

The next day, according to the New York Times, the Air Force Reserve issued this statement:

In response to the claims being made today regarding the Air Force Reserve regional ad that aired in select markets during the Super Bowl, the Air Force Reserve, through its advertising agency [Blaine Warren Advertising], hired Fast Forward Music of Salt Lake City to score original music for its commercial. There was never any intention to utilize any existing music or to sound like any music by the band White Stripes or any other musical performer. Any similarity or likeness to any other music is completely unintentional.

The composer, Kem Kraft, a freelance musician based in Salt Lake City, said:

I’m sorry it sounds the same. It wasn’t my intention, truly, truly, truly.

[If the White Stripes] want to call me and talk to me, as far as I’m concerned, I’m responsible for this. Just me.

I’m pretty much a one-man band here. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Air Force. They didn’t know anything, and I didn’t know anything either.

Mike Lee, the owner of Fast Forward Productions, said:

We went back and forth on the song several times. We changed stuff quite a bit, just to match the tempo of how I cut it together.

I wasn’t familiar with the White Stripes song. I’ve heard of the White Stripes but I’m not a listener of theirs. I had no idea there was similarity until after the fact.

 

So if the White Stripes sue for copyright infringement they will need to prove that the composer had access to their song and that there is a “substantial similarity” between the music.  They do not need to prove “intent.”

 

You are the judge.  Did the Air Force grab some music?

 

 

There’s no doubt in my mind that this is the same song. It sucks. I’ve been to court several times in the past for being ripped off. It is infuriating and even if you win,(at least in my case), little was gained, but plenty was paid in attorney’s fees. White Stripe was ripped off and the composer knew it, I’ll bet on it.

If the composer was around a radio in the mid 2000s, he had easy access to that song. While watching that commercial, I could tell within the first few notes that the song is Fell In Love With a Girl – the similarity is so substantial that they sound exactly the same.
This situation reminds me of when Vanilla Ice ripped off David Bowie but at least Ice Ice Baby wasn’t the soundtrack of military propaganda.

Even if it was unintentional, I still sort think that he HAD to have heard that song before. So, maybe he wasn’t trying to rip it off, but the tune was in the back of his mind and he accidentally did. I know they’ve stopped airing this ad, and so I think that apologies should be made and that should be that.

Sounds like it to me — although I believe that there’s a possibility that the person approving this on the Air Force’s end would not have recognized the song. I would have to say the guy that did the music should be held responsible.

guessing from- the- rumble- seat- in- the- back- of- the- minivan .. did NOT catch it .. so any comment here is tangentially qualified or summarily disqualified …

though i have had to check those horns/thorns …. no fun …
,
i generally do not presume, nor presume the best BIG BIZ … that said …

artists/we are affected consciously and subconsciously … ( respect ! and see legjr above comment ) intervening years are relatively unimportant …. intention IS …. the trick ( and legality turns on) HOW different .. and is there some registration / copyright …

India Arie regularly wrote SW riffs .. and paid homage ( not $) .. Lauryn sounds like Aretha and loves Ceelo …. i have trouble telling some Ohio Players from EWF … same of some 60’s sounds …. and derivations .. Beatles impressed EVERYONE … i hear them everywhere … whether we think so or declaim same …

if there is any context for TRUST among the creatives … the offended / concerned ARTISTS should engage directly … and then consider who added to any marketing mischief … proceed accordingly …

Friends behaving badly?

 

Allison entered into a written agreement with her friend Lisa to design, decorate and furnish the interior of Allison’s new wine bar “Drinking Divas.”

The work was to be completed for a fixed fee of $50,000.

After completing about half of the work, Lisa asked Allison for half the contract price.  Allison agreed and paid Lisa $25,000.  The next day, Lisa assigned the remainder of her rights under the contract to her friend Jimmy “the Weasel” as security for a $20,000 loan.

Jimmy “the Weasel” immediately notified Allison of the assignment.

The following week, Lisa took off to Cabo San Lucas for a little “get-away” and has not been heard from since.  She abandoned the “Drinking Diva” project and defaulted on the loan from Jimmy “the Weasel.”

Allison eventually found another designer to complete the interior design of her wine bar to her satisfaction for an additional $20,000.

Jimmy “the Weasel,” unable to find Lisa, sues Allison for breach of contract.

You are the judge.  How do you decide?  Who gets what?

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

No way Jose…Jimmy needs to go down to Cabo Wabo and pull Lisa out of the bar where’s she’s doing body shots and shake that money tree.

Apparently Jimmy did find the tree – but by then it had no leaves on it.

Anyway, Jimmy, as Lisa’s assignee of her rights under the “Drinking Divas” contract, is entitled to the rights which Lisa would have – to collect the $25,000 upon completion of the decoration of the wine bar.

Unfortunately, Lisa breached the contract and is entitled to nothing – so Jimmy is entitled to nothing.

Allison had the right to use the money she promised to Lisa to pay for completion of the wine bar.

If it had cost Allison $45,000 to finish decorating her wine bar – and that amount was determined to be reasonable – she could have then sued Jimmy for $20,000.

well, lisa probably hasn’t been heard from because jimmy the weasel had her knocked off. but i would have said that the rights do not transfer unless allison also agreed to it, and it looks like that is kind of the way it is. good one.

What are friends for?

Allison, a renowned sommelier, entered into a written “fixed-fee” agreement with her friend Lisa, a celebrated designer recognized for her distinctive designs.

The contract called for Lisa to design the interior of Allison’s new wine bar “Drinking Divas” and, upon Allison’s approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the wine bar accordingly.

The agreement is silent as to assignment or delegation by either Allison or Lisa.

Shortly after the contract was signed but before she had a chance to begin work on the “Drinking Divas” project, Lisa finally realized that she just had too many projects going at the same time and something had to give.

Lisa made the decision to sell her design business to her friend Heidi.  Under the contract with Heidi, Lisa assigned to Heidi, and Heidi agreed to complete, the “Drinking Divas” project.

Heidi, an experienced designer with an excellent reputation and portfolio, informed Allison of the assignment and supplied her with documentation confirming both Heidi’s financial responsibility and her past commercial and critical design success.

Allison balks.

You are the judge.

Is Allison legally obligated to allow Heidi to perform the “Drinking Divas” project?

 

 Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today. 

There are many unjust things that occur in this world but there’s no way that Allison would be legally forced to have someone design her bar if she didn’t want them to. Design tastes vary too drastically to just replace one designer with another.

-
The general rule is that all contractual rights are assignable, however, some rights are considered too “personal” to transfer. That is the case here.

The performance Lisa owed Allison was personal in nature – based on her reputation, style and talent – and cannot be assigned to Heidi.

Even though there is no doubt that Heidi is an excellent designer, courts consider contracts such as this non-delegable – unless, of course, there was an affirmative agreement to allow for assignment or delegation.

Do We have a Deal?

Lenny was a bit pressed for money (well, $30 M in the hole and homeless) so he decided to sell his $400,000 Rolls-Royce Phantom before he loses it through bankruptcy.

On Monday morning, Lenny e-mailed his big-spending buddy Nicholas that he wants to sell his ride:  “you know the car – the Rolls that I took you for a ride in last year in Vegas – I know you love it – I was thinking I might take $100,000 for it.”

The next day, Tuesday, Lenny received an email from Nicholas:  “I will buy your Rolls-Royce for $100,000.”

On Wednesday, Lenny e-mailed back to Nicholas: “OK, it’s a deal.”

Later that day, before Nicholas had a chance to check his e-mail account and see Lenny’s e-mail, Lenny received a phone call from Nicholas.

Nicholas tells Lenny that he just got a notice from the government that claims he owes $10M in back taxes.  So, although it goes against his instincts, he will have to pass on the Rolls-Royce.

You are the judge.

Did Lenny and Nicholas have a contract on Tuesday?  Or on Wednesday?  Or was there no contract?

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in Comment #6.

Hmm, this is a good one. It sounds like it will be up to whether or not an email is more like a verbal contract or a written contract. Nicholas might get off the hook since he never signed anything. It could also be hard to prove that he didn’t see Lenny’s last email.

Lenny made an offer and Nicholas accepted it – that’s a contract.

Contracts w/friends and family? I real friend, no. A crap friend, yes. Only an idiot would ask a friend to buy his (anything) anyway.

I agree atomictangerine, a bad move

Hmmm…now, I remember a similar scenario and my memory is a little fuzzy, but I believe until the actual terms have been set (when the money will be paid, when the goods will be picked up, etc.) that it’s not a legal deal.

Do tell…

Is This a Nuisance?

Elin owns a mansion on a lake in Florida.  Her long time neighbor, Rachael, owns a more modest home just behind Elin’s and can see the lake from her bedroom.

Elin and Rachael recently got into an argument over a guy they both fancied – or something like that – and are no longer friends.

Elin knew that Rachael did a lot of entertaining in her bedroom; so Elin had huge spotlights erected on her property that go on automatically every night at sunset and turn off at sunrise.  This has the desired effect – Rachael no longer has a view of the lake from her bedroom at night.

Rachael sues Elin.

You are the judge.

Will Rachael prevail?

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

What is Rachael suing Elin for? To have the lights removed? Turned off? Some sort of monetary damages? If I was the judge and Elin couldn’t prove that the lights in that position were accomplishing something (protecting her property) that couldn’t be accomplished by another means, I would order that she move them.

Sounds like a bad neighbor (don’t we all have them), but I don’t know how much of a case there is if there are no homeowners’ association rules over their properties.

A nuisance exists if:

Elin’s use of her land unreasonably interfers with the use and enjoyment of Rachael’s land.

Elin could claim (untruthfully) that the spotlights are needed to protect her property at night but the court would balance that with the degree of harm done. Some of the factors the court would take into consideration: locality and character of the neighborhood; the nature, extent, and frequency of the interference, and the utility and social value of the spotlights.

But everybody (including the judge) knows that Elin hates Rachael – and no burglar would mess with Elin.

So Rachael should prevail on a nuisance theory.

Elin intentionally caused substantial and unreasonable interference with Rachael’s use and enjoyment of her property by putting up spotlights that are on all night and, thus, ruin Rachael’s view of the lake.

Trespassers?

Richard owns a large track of land in Fort Collins, Colorado where he works on developing a saucer-shaped balloon as an alternative form of transportation, in which “people can pull out of their garage and hover above traffic” at about 50 or 100 feet (15 or 30 m).

One day his son, Falcon, decides to take the balloon for a ride while his mother and father are out playing “wife swap.” 

Unknown to Falcon, Michaele and Tareq had hiked on to Richard’s property a couple of days earlier and were presently camping on Richard’s property without his knowledge or consent. 

As fate would have it, after traveling approximately 1000 feet, the balloon and Falcon come crashing down on Michaele and Tareq.  Falcon is confused and vomits but is, by and large, unhurt.  Michaele and Tareq are not so lucky – they are severely injured in the crash.

Tareq and Michaele sue Richard to recover for their injuries.

You are the judge.  Do Tareq and Michaele prevail?

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

No; a landowner has no duty of care to a trespasser.

At trial, Tareq and Michaele claimed that were not trespassers but could not produce the invitation.

If Richard had become aware that Tareq and Michaele where camping out on his property, he might be liable for not reasonably supervising his son. However, in this case, no one knew that Tareq and Michaele were on the property.

Invasion of Privacy or Public Figure?

 

Prince Chuck, a well-known polo player, was drinking “Backdoor” wine at Posers Vineyard, with his close friends, Mykae’Y and T’reek.

After downing a couple glasses, Prince Chuck states:  “Love this Backdoor stuff.”

T’reek then asks Prince Chuck if he can take a picture of him with his beautiful and charming wife, Mykae’Y.  Prince Chuck says:  “Why, of course.”

Mykae’Y leans in towards Prince Chuck, puts one arm on his back and, with the other hand, spins the bottle of wine so the label is clearly showing.  T’reek snaps the picture.

T’reek and Mykae’Y then sell the photo to Posers Vineyard to pay for Mykae’Y’s hair extensions.

A few months later, back in South America, Prince Chuck is flipping through an internationally circulated Polo Magazine and discovers an advertisement for Posers Vineyard.  The advertisement shows a picture of him and Mykae’Y with a bottle of “Backdoor” wine sitting on the table in front of them.  The caption under the photograph states:  “Prince Chuck loves his Backdoor wine.”

Prince Chuck sues Posers Vineyard to recover damages as a result of Posers Vineyard’s use of the photograph.

You are the judge.  Does Prince Chuck prevail?

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

If Poser’s Vineyard asked T’reek if he had a model/celebrity release and he said yes, them I believe that T’reek would then be the one responsible.

*********
Prince Chuck prevails against Posers Vineyard
in a tort action for invasion of privacy.
*********

Although Prince Chuck is a public figure and thus subject to news coverage, he has a property right in his name and likeness. Therefore, when Posers Vineyards used Prince Chuck’s name and likeness without his consent for its commercial use, it violated that property right. Posers Vineyards would have needed an exclusive license from Prince Chuck to use his name and likeness – which they didn’t have.

Prince Chuck does not have a claim against T’reek because he didn’t publish the photograph at all. T’reek and Mykae’Y could have published it on their Facebook page because Prince Chuck is a public figure. Again, it is the commercial use that is the issue.

Jury pools

Marjorie was born in Haiti and moved to Florida in 1957 after a dictator, Dr. François Duvalier (“Papa Doc”), was named President of Haiti.

After she had lived in Florida for thirty-five years and had never been called upon to serve on jury duty, she decided to conduct a search of the county court records.

What she found was that a Haitian alien had never served on a jury in her county.  Moreover, nearly 10 percent of her county’s population consisted of Haitian aliens.

Marjorie sues her county alleging that she has been unconstitutionally excluded from the jury pool lists.

You are the judge.

Do you find for Marjorie?  Or for the county?  Why?

 

 

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

I think Marjorie is being unconstitutionally excluded from the jury pool. It’s descrimination to deliberately exclude a group of people based on nationality, race, age etc. Also, the jury pool isn’t a fair cross section of the county if they are leaving out 10% of the population so the defendant wouldn’t receive a fair trial in this situation. I thought that jury pools were a random “pool” of people presented to the court and then it’s up to the lawyers to choose the jurors.

If she’s an alien, then she may be in the US legally, but she’s not a citizen, so thus she and her fellow aliens are ineligible to serve jury duty until they gain US citizenship.

The county prevails.

***********************

Although, Marjorie is the being discriminated against by the government because she is an alien, she has the power to remove that discrimination by becoming a US citizen.

Generally, courts take a hard look at discrimination against aliens. They have invalidated laws prohibiting aliens from owning land and from obtaining a commercial fishing license. They have generally affirmed the right of aliens to public welfare, to earn a livelihood, and to engage in the “learned professions.”

Nonetheless, the courts have found, in matters relating to the governmental process, the state has the power to deny to aliens the right to vote and run for elected office. Courts have also upheld laws requiring police officers and public school teachers be citizens.

Retaliation Against Constitutionally Protected Activity

Yesterday’s “You are the judge” post concerned the issue of retaliation by the government against activity that is constitutionally protected.  Click here.

For background on the actually case, you may check the story on CBS.

I thought it would be informative to reproduce some of the findings from the court’s decision because it discusses constitutional rights that we often take for granted – until we are the target.  Please note that I have heavily edited the court’s opinion for the sake of brevity.

To summarize, the girls and their parents’ complaint was that the DA retaliated against them for asserting their constitutional rights.  More specifically, the girls asserted their constitutional right to avoid the courses and their parents have asserted their constitutional right to direct the girls’ education and, because the girls’ pictures were not illegal, the only reason to prosecute them would be in retaliation for exercising their constitutional right not to participate in the program.  The court agreed.

Constitutionally Protected Activity

The parents in this case have a Fourteenth Amendment right substantive due process right to be free from state interference with family relations. 

Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as of basic importance in our society, rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. 

Indeed, the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. 

As early as 1923, the Supreme Court found that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that, in addition to restricting suppression of speech, the First Amendment may prevent the government from compelling individuals to express certain views. 

This view exists because at the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration and adherence.

Among the categories of compelled speech found impermissible by the Supreme Court is government action that forces a private speaker to propagate a particular message chosen by the government.

Here, the girls will be compelled to write an essay that explains what they did wrong.  Because they in no way violated the law,  being compelled to describe their behavior as wrong on threat of a felony conviction forces them to express a belief they do not hold and thus violates their right to be free of compelled speech.

Government Retaliation

The Courts have held that an adverse action by the government sufficient to support a retaliation claim has occurred if the alleged retaliatory conduct was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his/her First Amendments Rights.

As a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out.

The court finds that the threat of a felony prosecution would deter an ordinary person from exercising her constitutional rights.

The Protected Activity Caused the Retaliation

The DA asserted that the photographs are “provocative,” but “provocative photos,” are not illegal under the law even when they involve minors.

The statute in question prohibits the distribution of images depicting a prohibited sexual act, and defines “prohibited sexual act” to mean “sexual intercourse . . . masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.”  The images here do not even remotely meet this definition.

The images in question could not possibly support a charge of child pornography.  As such, the DA’s threat to charge the minor plaintiffs with a felony is not a genuine attempt to enforce the law, but instead an attempt to force the minor plaintiffs to participate in the education program.

The fact that the DA continues to promise prosecution if the girls refuse to participate indicates that the charges are retaliation for their refusal to engage in compelled speech.  In the case of the parents, this threat is an attempt to compel them to abandon their Fourteenth Amendment right to control their child’s upbringing.